For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer.
Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions
So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you

Translate

Thursday, 31 May 2018

Okay folks, let's put this one to bed, because Lady Liesalot is starting to seriously get on my tits.

Here is the actual comment that I made, on a single occasion

“Well, why do you
think? Might interest you to know that it’s impossible to field walk in this
country without finding small pieces of human bone, due to centuries of
ploughing disturbing medieval graves. Consequently, it finds its way into the
topsoil very readily. Try thinking outside the box for a change.”

This was in response to someone posing the question "How could there be an alert outside?"I made the fatal mistake of inviting the textaloons to try using their brains. It turns out they don't have any.So for those who do, allow me to explain.It is not uncommon to find bone fragments in the soil. There are many factors which come into play: Local burial practices (many burials were of cremated remains containing lots of charred bone, or grave cuts into the ground which were then disturbed by later ploughing activity) can result in ancient bone being brought to the surface. That soil may then be moved, used as topsoil or in landscaping, further distributing bone fragments. If the soil is very alkaline, the fragments may not survive - so lots of variables.We know that trained cadaver dogs will alert to ancient remains or even sand which previously contained human remains, so my comment was nothing more than an invitation to the lunatic fringe to bloody well think for a change.I did not say the apartment was on the site of a medieval graveyard. Nor did I suggest that cadaver odour ''wafted in from outside'', that was Textusa's invention.So how did the liar Textusa disseminate this?

" He has even defended
his “Madeleine graveyard theory”, whereby apartment 5A happens to be where a
medieval graveyard was, as when we we wrote in the post:"

LIE

"Nothing in the
article about this. Why? Because the only lies that have been running about
this are ridiculous, Kate McCann having been in contact with corpses before
coming to Portugal, the seabass story and Insane’s graveyard in the backyard."

LIE

"Insane who says that
the scent outside in the backyard signalled by the ERVD dog was either human
bones in fertilizer or apartment 5A is on top of a medieval graveyard!"

LIE

"About what Eddie
marks in the flowerbed, Insane has given 2 options: fertilizer with human bones
and apartment 5A being built on top of a medieval graveyard."

LIE

She even had the nerve to change this quote by Martin Grime:

“What we have to be
able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the
apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in
here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent
residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat,
the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent
in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not
be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the
air is actually pushing into that corner.

.....Into this:

''It seems to us that
Martin Grime is quite clear in contradicting him when he says “a scent source in here, i.e. a
physical article where the scent is emitting from”.

....by removing the words "If there isn't.." from the beginning in a staggeringly inept attempt to change his meaning

So when I say Textusa is a liar, I mean she is a proven, unrepentant liar

Have you ever had to deal with someone who is so stupid that you wonder if they will go to their grave still in a haze of bewilderment?Then you'll know how I feel.Despite the fact that I went to the trouble of explaining this in language a cauliflower could understand, today the loopy loon comes back with this:

So. 2 possibilities. Either the blood was there but no longer there only its odour (BUT the blood was THERE) or, as it seems to be what is being proposed, the odour of blood wafted into the apartment, just like the cadaver scent with Eddie.

This is one of Textusa's favourite lies.I have never claimed any scent "wafted into" the apartment. Never.The problem is she simply cannot grasp the concept of residual scent. So I am going to try again.A woman walks into a room wearing a strong and distinctive perfume. That perfume can still be detected in the air even after she has left. Why? Because the gaseous molecules produced by the scent linger in the air and attach to surfaces.

It is exactly the same with cadaver odour. Or the scent of blood. A dog may alert to the presence of residual scent even though the source of the scent is no longer there.So could a blood dog alert to residual scent? Yes of course. Does that mean blood was found in the apartment? No, of course not. I really cannot make that any simpler.

So, both Eddie and Keela detected correctly what they were trained for BUT it was scents that wafted into the apartment! One must ask what good are the dogs for if what they signal can have come, literally, from anywhere?

At no point,ever, have I suggested the dogs alerted to scents ''wafting in'' to the apartment.This is simply a barefaced lie. I challenge Textusa to produce any such claim.The remainder of her post just illustrates that she is either thicker than a whale in a bap or she is being deliberately duplicitous. It's one or the other You can parrot "So blood was detected in the apartment" as many times as you like; it won't change the truthAs I stated " Nothing was found which gave a positive reaction for blood."You are perfectly aware that no-one can make a claim based purely on an uncorroborated dog alert and no confirmed blood was found. You might not like it, but there it is.As regards your claim about graveyards, please go ahead and show where you think I said it.JB was spot on about you.You really can't read, can you?Edited on 1/6/18If I hadn't read this with my own eyes, I don't think I would have believed it possible.This is Textusa's reply

"A woman walks into a room wearing a strong and distinctive perfume. That perfume can still be detected in the air even after she has left. Why? Because the gaseous molecules produced by the scent linger in the air and attach to surfaces."

First, perfume is liquid. It comes in bottles and is put on either directly or sprayed (not gas).

We have a major problem here. I can't make up for what appears to be a complete lack of education, which frankly I find worrying as this is the sort of science a primary school child should be able to understand.The perfume goes on as a liquid. But how does it get from the skin of the wearer to the nose of the observer?Please try to think. It is scary that you don't understand this

“Your cadaver scent” which is according to you purely gaseous right from the start, only gaseous, and not an odour like we say that has a liquid/syrupy source like a perfume. So why you are using perfume as an example?

Because the principle is exactly the fucking same

Then, it seems you are recognising that the cadaver and now blood were in that apartment.

I have NEVER suggested they weren't, you dozy cow

Like the woman. Or are you saying your perfumed woman was in another apartment and her perfume scent wafted out of that apartment into the open air and then and went into the apartment where the dog then picked it up?

Are you taking the piss?

About you saying you never said the scent wafted in, it’s true, you never used the expression.

No. Precisely. I never used that expression, nor would I. YOU used it and then repeatedly lied, saying I had.

However, you have said that the fact that Eddie picked up the scent in apartment 5A doesn’t mean the body was there, how then other than wafting did the scent get in? It came in a letter addressed to 5A?

Oh my fucking god. What do you understand ''residual scent'' to mean?The body was thereThen it wasn'tThe scent remains.FFS!

Please do explain.

Other than cracking open the top of your head and inserting a working brain, I am running out of ideas.What really disgusts me is not that you have absolutely no understanding of the most BASIC science - you can't help the fact that you were raised by wolves - but that not only do you have the fucking brass neck to try to lecture others with your pretendy knowledge, you then lie about it afterwards, accusing me of making up the shit you dragged out of some foetid corner of your twisted psyche. Normally I wouldn't dream of taking the piss out of someone for being stupid. I'll make an exception for you. Consider it payback for your lies and for lying to your attack hounds that I was Walker, in the hope that they would threaten and harass me. They did, but if you think I give a shit, you are sorely mistaken

No case will be brought to court because the witnesses or suspects made contradictory statements or told demonstrable lies.

Yes, we can see clearly that the McCannss and their friends did both - lied and contradicted themselves. Tanner’s ridiculous sighting would never have resulted in a charge as who can prove she didn’t actually see anybody?

Charged with what, exactly?

No matter how many verbal and linguistic analyses are carried out, they are not regarded as evidence in court, even when we watch them and KNOW why we have every reason to suspect them.

The case will only come to court with a confession, perhaps the finding of a body (highly unlikely) or, as seems more likely, forensic evidence.

Okay - here we go. What forensic evidence would that be? All the forensics has been worked. Yes, it can be worked again, but there is nothing to suggest that anything is likely to emerge.There are no mystery fibres.There are no mystery profilesThere is no stored clothing to be re-examined for trace evidence.So what do you think is going to emerge?

THAT is why those of us who persist in discussing the dogs and forensic evidence are harassed by the McCann supporters and not about the evident lies and contradictions.

Bullshit - you persist in discussing the same misinterpretations and misunderstandings and nobody harasses you; quite the opposite.

They know the circumstantial evidence, although substantial, is not enough to convict.

It's not substantial either.

We know the fact the dogs indicated to 11 McCann related areas and objects is not evidential, only indicative, and we know the FSS reports were inconclusive (although potentially much more could have been done with a series of reductive tests.)

Oh really? Well, do share, Einstein. What are these ''reductive tests'' which should have been performed?

We don’t need the Usual Suspect Critics to assume we’re idiots

That ship has sailed, dear.

and think we’re asking for the dogs to be called as witnesses. We’re fighting for the credibility of the dogs to be sustained.

The credibility of the dogs is not the issue and has never been in question by anyone whose opinion matters

Without that, calling for forensic evidence to be pursued is a waste of time, as the “anti dogs brigade” clearly say it is.

So here's where you try another of your little falsehoods, falsely equating those who believe the forensic evidence is a dead end and those who are, in your parlance, the "anti-dogs brigade"So I am going to give you the opportunity to explain precisely what further testing you believe should be conducted and what you would expect those tests to reveal.

And the desperate need to prove no trace of blood residues in the apartment is significant.

Is it? Is it really?I am going to assume that either you haven't read the forensic reports or you didn't understand what you were reading. And despite the fact that I have explained this about 20 times, you don't listen, so you never learn.So I will say it again. There is no ''desperate need'' to prove something which is already there, in the reports. Yes, the dog alerted. However, none of the samples/residues collected tested positive for blood. I'll try explaining it to you again in the faint hope that you might take it in this time.Several methods were used to try to detect biological residues, including the use of UV light sources and chemicals which attach to blood residues and glow in the presence of UV. Nothing was found which gave a positive reaction for blood. Spots which had the potential to be blood were also recovered and tested. None gave a positive reaction for blood.Not a single residue tested positive for blood.Now - at this point you will doubtless be jumping up and own screeching "But the dogs, but the dogs...!!!"As has been explained to you about 8 billion times, and as you fail to grasp even when provided with scientific papers on the subject, there are a number of possible explanations for this.The first is that, as demonstrated in the carpet squares study, half of which you clearly didn't understand, odour is a result of gaseous molecules released by a substance reacting with receptors in the nose. In order for any substance to smell, it must be capable of releasing molecules into the atmosphere. Does a lump of steel smell? No. Because it cannot release molecules into the air.Okay so far?So, here are the possibilities:1. The dog alerted to residual odour, the source of the odour being no longer present (possible)2. The dog alerted to odour from residues which were present but the residues were not sufficient to give a positive reaction for blood (possible, but unlikely - the tests are pretty sensitive)3. The dog alerted to microscopic traces of blood but it cannot be confirmed because all that could be recovered was tiny fragments of DNA which could not be assigned to any bodily fluid (possible)4. The dog recorded a false-positive response (unlikely, based on comparable situations in controlled conditions)Does it matter? Not really, no. Without confirmation of the dog alerts, it cannot be relied upon.

That would allow for an abductor who took a dead child without leaving traces which needed to be cleaned.

What?! Sorry, let me try that again. What?!So this is your level of understanding, is it? Negative for blood means an abductor could have taken the child, positive means the apartment had been cleaned?You really are utterly clueless. Clueless.It would appear, then, that your explanation is that there was blood, but it was cleaned, hence there was none to find.Well, that really demonstrates how little you understand.You can't ''clean away'' blood and leave it undetectable. It would still give a positive result with UV and luminol, even if visually clean.There was absolutely nothing in that flat to indicate any significant shedding of blood. There were no ''blood spatters'' on the wall or curtain.

Blood alert would mean the apartment had been cleaned and the parents therefore involved.

Nonsense.

We can only hope further tests on remaining material, such as the 4 hairs in Portugal, or tests on the curtains, undertaken by OG, produce enough evidence to pursue a prosecution in Portugal.

They won't. All the hairs were tested, there is nothing further to elucidate in terms of those results. The '4 hairs' you describe may have been eliminated on first examination as non-human, if they even exist (anything which requires further examination is marked up at a crime scene - not all will pan out)

Or rather, those holding the evidence obtained are given the green light to use it.

The forensics will be reviewed, but in my opinion it is most unlikely they will be of any use. Your obsession with the ''blood alert'' stems from your lack of even the most basic understanding of biology.For too long you and others have been allowed to get away with your vicious abuse of anyone who tries to explain the forensic results to you, which is only necessary because you were too lazy to read them for yourselves or too dumb to understand them. Much easier to shriek "You're dissing the dogs!" and demand the messenger is shot at dawn, isn't it?

Evening all,I've always been a fan of classic war films, especially - and I have no idea why this is - ones set on submarines.My favourite bit was always when an enemy sub aimed a torpedo at the heroes and the captain called "Release countermeasures!"The countermeasures in question was a substance referred to as "chaff", usually metal-coated glass fibres, which had the effect of blocking or confusing the enemy radar or the torpedo guidance system. It was, if you like, a great big distraction.And that is precisely what this is:

The orderlies wondered whether to tell Textusa that she was looking into the wrong end of the shotgun, but decided it would be more fun to wait

Firstly, I should explain that I have redacted the name of the person Textusa has singled out, as I don't have their permission to use it. For the same reason, I have not copied over the post they wrote which rattled Textusa's cage

One must find strange such a conciliatory comment from someone who supported the attack made against this blog on the Justice for Madeleine FB group, quite surprising.

"Attack made against this blog" - seriously, does anyone have access to the world's smallest violin?Here we witness the other tactic Textusa likes to employ - attack anyone who she decides has given tacit support to her "sworn enemies". I find it pathetic beyond words.

If need be we will repost the divisiveness you supported and now come here to blame us and our readers for it. Then, when we were being attacked, it seemed, that divisiveness pleased you. Have you gone to Justice to express a similar opinion or you decided only to do that here?

Oooh, little bit of a threat, there, as Textusa throws in a bit of "divide and conquer" just for good measure

Blacksmith (who we still are waiting to know why he calls us liars)

It is probably because of all the lying

has now sided with Not Textusa about who he highly praises the “latter's knowledge and opinion on genetics”.

Thanks, JB

Based on what?

Probably my explanation of the "at least three, up to five" statistic

Blacksmith has publicly said he doesn’t read us.

Smart move.

Not Textusa’s on genetics are made by him copying what we have written and then writing his personal opinions on what we have said.

Excuse me? I was commenting on John Lowe's report. I wouldn't be arsed writing about what you have said unless it was to critique it, which wouldn't take long, seeing as what you know about genetics could be written on a sultana. With a marker pen.

So, factually, for Blacksmith to have such a high opinion on this individual’s opinion on genetics can only come from him having read not only us but us AND Not Textusa.

What in the name of sanity are you on about? It's probably a good time to mention that I did actually study genetics at university and have extracted more DNA than you have had hot ketamine.

Then in his sanctimonious and paternalistic quote he makes this accusation against us: “The subjects they stay absolutely silent about are the facts that matter and cannot be refuted”. Really? We return that accusation to him, where he has remained absolutely silent about facts that matter and cannot be refuted that this blog has presented. From him we have heard nothing expect saying that we’re liars. Requested to detail where we have lied, Blacksmith remains silent.

Well, I certainly wouldn't presume to answer for JB, but you lie as easily as most people draw breath, you demented fraud

And speaking about falsehood he contradicts himself in the same paragraph. On one hand he says “the facts that matter and cannot be refuted, either on the net or in court” and then states as a fact (unable to be refuted on the net or in court) “the silence of Jane Tanner”. How does he know this to be a fact? Because he says so? What does he know what Jane Tanner has or not said to Operation Grange if even she has been asked to say something which we believe she hasn’t. Why would Operation Grange be privy with a blogger? Is this silence from Jane Tanner a fact that cannot be refuted on the net or on the court or is it simply just a made-up fact by Blacksmith? We would say the latter but, as always, Blacksmith is free to come here and prove us wrong.

You say “maybe we cannot all agree ALL of the time” and “even if all do not agree with certain comments” and that has been instrumentally used by many to obfuscate the truth and make sure it is not outed.

Who is she talking to now, you ask? Well, I think it's our redacted friend, but who the fuck knows - it could be the wallpaper, frankly.

That’s a myth the other side has masterfully created with enormous success that we should be respectful of differences.

And I no longer know who the ''other side'' is either. She could be hiding up a tree on a Japanese island, convinced the war is still on, for all I know

One, one cannot and should not because there are differences and then there are differences.

Thank you, professor

To put it in plain terms, to discuss if a certain tonality of purple is magenta or violet is a difference that should be respected and the issue debated.

*points at temple, makes circular motions*

To discuss if black is white or if white is black is a difference that merits no consideration. Or respect. If someone keeps on insisting that something is black when everyone can see that it is white, that does not deserve any respect, nor is it being disrespectful to not respect at ALL that opinion.

Like whether a table exists and the inadequateness of the esplanade, for example?

The opinion of insisting that white is black only has the purpose to disrupt and abuses with intent and success the concept that we all should respect each other “even if all do not agree with certain comments”.

So basically, you want to decide what is and isn't true and reserve the right to karate chop the kidneys of anyone who doesn't believe. That's basically your position, isn't it?

That’s the reason why those still debating that an abduction happened are consensually disrespected.

Why - because you don't agree with them? They are at least as entitled to their opinion as you are entitled to your fuckwitted fantasy about them all shagging the neighbours, surely?

Why aren’t they entitled to have their ridiculous opinions considered seriously?

Because you don't agree with them?

Because they keep saying it’s white when the rest of the world can see it clearly that it is black. Ignoring them is not being disrespectful, it’s simply being reasonable and respectful to one’s own values.

Okay - well, I think your theories are the deranged rambles of a diseased mind. That's not being disrespectful, I'm just being reasonable. (Actually, I am, but that's beside the point)

For example, when Not Textusa – with whom Blacksmith has now decided to side with

*cue booing and hissing noises from the balcony*This is so disrespectful, Textusa. You keep using this expression - "side with"It is utterly juvenile and ignores entirely the fact that the people concerned might actually agree with each other.

– says that what Eddie signalled in the backyard comes from a medieval graveyard,

And here is one of your lies. That is not what I said, I have already corrected you several times, yet you lack the manners to correct yourself

he’s clearly stating that white is black and so does not merit the ‘right to difference’.

Oh do fuck off

Neither does who sides with such a man.

And there we go again. Sides.

As, we read on an image from FB recently: “you are free to choose, but you are not free from the consequence of your choice.”

We will respond to Anslow, Thompson and Blacksmith in due time.

I'm sure they will be waiting with bated breathSo now I am going to point out what someone should have pointed out to you years ago. You are a monstrous control freak. You actually think you can dictate to people what they should believe and who they are allowed to associate with. If they displease you in some way, you attack them. Anyone who doesn't fall for your fairy stories hook, line and sinker walks a constant tightrope with you. It is clearly killing you that you can't just bully everyone into agreeing with you.You are a very sad person. Get some therapy

Morning readers,Just a very quick note.Please do not be alarmed at the smell of burning martyr drifting through from next door. Textusa, who suffers from IDS (Irony Deficiency Syndrome) has posted a sorrowful video, accompanied by tear-jerking music and bearing the immortal sentiment :

"Some people are truly great manipulators. They can lie, cheat, treat you badly and somehow manage to make it seem like it's all your fault"

....so if you are deafened today by loud shrieking noises, it will just be the Irony detector klaxons going off as Textusa walks past, like Iron Man passing through airport security.

Tuesday, 29 May 2018

It has been a very strange 24 hours. When you blog, it's your little piece of cyberspace. Within reason, it's up to you what you choose to say or allow and you are answerable only to your service provider, the law and the authorities.By the same token, anyone is free to use their bit of the internet to comment on what you have written on your bit of the internet. The internet is not unique. It is the 20th/21st century version of news sheets, town criers, journals, but the output of person A, whether poetry, prose or art, has always been subject to critique from person B.However, this isn't quite what we have witnessed.THIS is what we have witnessed:

"Mr van Gogh, I am not keen on this post-impressionist style of yours"

"Fair enough, Mr Monet"

"Mr Pissarro thinks it's crap too"

"Well, that's fine, I have no issue with Mr Pissarro"

"Mr Gauguin here - I quite like this Post-impressionist style, I think I might give it a go"

"I see - so you are siding with Mr van Gogh. Well, you showed your true colours, didn't you?"

"Sorry? What's the problem?"

"Mr Pissarro, Gauguin is siding with old Vincent One-Ear"

"Erm, just a minute, Mr Monet...."

"No, no - we've all seen who you align yourself with, Gauguin. You hate Impressionism"

"I didn't say that - I just said I quite like this Post-Impressionist style!"

"We all heard you. And I now declare that you probably painted all van Gogh's paintings - I recognise the brushwork"Grow the fuck up, Maria. You are in this position because of your inability to support your claims with a single fact. Stop taking your impotent temper out on everyone around you. If you want people to respect you, stop lying to them. Just fucking grow up.

Monday, 28 May 2018

Evening all,Just a quick one tonight.Some of you may have seen Textusa's latest mad rant in which she seems to find it necessary to "out" anyone who might ever have agreed with me on any point, no matter how small or inconsequential. Some of you have been kind enough to inform her of the error of her ways, for which I thank you. Sadly, all she has achieved is to reinforce what I said - that she has a major problem with anyone who refuses to drink the Kool Aid. I am quietly smiling to myself imagining just how pissed off she must be that she declared she wasn't going to post again, because it is clearly driving her even more bonkers that she doesn't have recourse to arrows to illustrate her points. It probably also drives her nuts that I couldn't be less bothered by her mad ranting.

Sunday, 27 May 2018

Morning readers,As you may remember, Textusa recently claimed, in a post she said was the most significant thing she had ever written about the case, that for the Op Grange officers to question any of the McCann group would be to ''kill the case, stone dead'', a claim she based on the differences between the rights conferred during an interview under caution and the rights of an arguido.This was, of course, complete bollocks.She has since spent weeks attempting to make her case by pointing out subtle differences between the two processes, whilst completely ignoring her central claim - that to interview the McCanns and/or friends would be to kill the case, stone dead.Here is her latest feeble effort. Enjoy.

We have now addressed the significant differences of opting for silence between being questioned under caution in the UK and while being an arguido in Portugal.

There are no significant differences, you paranoid loser

From one’s silence, inferences can be taken, while in Portugal there cannot be any inferences taken from that option.

As I have already clarified, inferences can only be drawn, by a jury, under very specific circumstances and on directions from the judge. Specifically, it only applies where a person facing charges tries to spring a defence in court that they haven't mentioned before. The jury cannot draw an adverse inference from their silence alone

The 48 questions Kate refused to answer demonstrate our point.

But another relevant point is the differences between when one decides to speak. The rights are significantly different.

The terms of the caution are clear about that (our caps): “The wording of the caution is:“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. ANYTHING YOU DO SAY MAY BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE.”

Yes. And?

In Portugal there is ONE and ONLY ONE thing an arguido has to be truthful about, his/her name: Listed as a procedural duty: “To tell the truth regarding the questions asked by a competent authority about his identity and, whenever required by law, about his criminal record”.

Who said anything about truthfulness? You just tossed that into the pot out of nowhere; it isn't mentioned in the caution.

Note, when and only when required by law, has the arguido to be truthful about his criminal record.

So?

Very easy to sum up: “ALWAYS truthful about his/her name, always truthful WHEN REQUIRED about his/her criminal record”. About anything else s/he says, is not liable to be “given in evidence”.

What are you on about? Of course it is

About this, we won’t expand any further.

Because you can't.

It’s so obvious that we think what is said above proves the point that it’s an absolute nonsense saying that being heard under caution in the UK is exactly the same as being heard as an arguido in Portugal.

So now, we want to focus on the fact that an arguido can be untruthful to the authorities in Portugal without any consequences while the same does not happen in the UK and see what our critics have to say.

Exactly the same here. In court, the person giving evidence takes a vow to tell the truth. Prior to that, they can, in either case, keep their mouth shut if they wish.

If this is not a significant difference, we don’t know the significance of significant.

Well, you clearly don't.However, to return to the ACTUAL issue, and not the one you are trying to substitute, you claimed that to interview the McCanns or friends in the UK would be to kill the case, stone dead. And that remains complete nonsense, regardless of how many of these feeble witterings you offer up.

Tuesday, 22 May 2018

Evening all 😆As Textusa is still sulking, let's have another dip into the archives for something suitably fuckwitted to kill time until Holby starts.This little gem dates from 2011 and is a classic example of her ability to take a piece of absolutely no consequence whatsoever and turn it into a conspiracy which puts Watergate in the shadeEnjoy

Tapas Quiz Night, Question #4/?

Foreword:As you know, I’ve been away from blogging on a personal decision to provide support to someone who’s seriously ailing.

Poor bastard - not only are they ill, they have you leering over them, muttering about inadequate esplanades and government black hats. Just make sure you don't leave any morphine within arms reach, for fuck's sake.

Only the importance of this post's content would make me come back.

None of your posts are important, you dozy bint. You could piss off for a decade and no-one would notice.

My decision continues to stand, and I’ll return to my relative’s (and dear, dear friend) bedside until I feel that the continuity of my presence is no longer required.

That 'dear friend' is probably out of bed, bench pressing 200lbs in a desperate attempt to make her go away. "Look, I'm better! I'm better, you mad bitch"

Thank you for all your patience and understanding.

*Cut to panoramic shot of 5,000 people, clearly not giving a shit*

Question: How important is routine to a Brit tourist in PdL?

Well, it depends what you mean. The same non-existent table for dinner? A shagging timetable? Regular bowel movements?

Answer: Of the UTMOST IMPORTANCE.

Of course. Brace yourselves, readers.

To the point of synchronizing their activities, be it leisure or be it meals, with those of other tourists, apparently complete strangers to one another, so that the intervals between the undertakings of said activities remain strictly fixed and enforced.

So, for example, planning to have dinner while the restaurant is actually open, and not three o'clock in the frigging morning, you mean? Perhaps you expected them to be a bit more adventurous:"I'd like a table for dinner, please?""Certainly sir - date?""The Ides of March ""Er...""No - change of plan; the tittytwelfth of Octember"

There is a document, in the PJ Files that has always baffled us: the Slide & Splash (S&S) "reservation" sheet.

It baffled you, dear. You and your idiot tagalongs

The list of people Textusa had bored into an early grave was growing all the time

It has baffled us, that is, until today.

Oh god, here we go.....

Now we’re able to show you how important is this apparently irrelevant piece of paper in solving some “mysteries” of the Maddie McCann Affair.

Now - at this point I have to warn you to lower your expectations. I mean, a lot. We need to lower them to an antipodean level, because this is going to be screaming cobblers of the first magnitude. Don't say I haven't warned you.

This piece of paper has the importance of PROVING the direct involvement of BOTH GUESTS and OCEAN CLUB STAFF in the cover-up of Maddie’s death.

Did you get that, folks? In case you didn't, she has emboldened half the words for the hard of thinking. But anyway, this is exciting, isn't it? Proof of the guests and the staff being ''in on it''

I can hardly wait. 💤

Let’s start with the information it contains:

Yes, lets!

Now, on a first look, it seems to be filled up with senseless information.

Well, you'd know, dear

Complete nonsense. We have a set of reservations to go to a water park, the Slide & Splash, located 25 minutes from Lagos:

Really? Where does it say that?

In her haste to add some arrows to her post, Textusa failed to notice that her route included some trees, a steep river gorge and a brisk 15 mile swim in the Atlantic. All of these were going to be a bastard to do in a minibus.

We also know that the Slide & Splash opens only at 10.00 am:

Indeedy - and what did you deduce from this, Poirot?

Oh look - an arrow!

This makes the S&S sheet, if it is in anyway related to the referred theme park, to be able only to be a transportation roster, mentioning the various guests’ departing times from the OC to the Slide & Splash.

Fascinating! Do continue.......

But that would mean that the OC apparently provided a mini-van every 15 minutes:
at 07.00, for 4 adults,
at 07.15, for 2 adults and 1 baby,
at 07.30, for 6 adults and 2 children,
at 07.45, for 4 adults and 2 children
at 08.00, for 8 adults.

Yes indeed. For a three hour journey, apparently. So at any point did your raisin-sized brain kick in and question this?

If we add 10 minutes to the 25 minutes that it takes from Lagos to the water park to go from PdL to Slide & Splash, it can be determined that a round trip would take 1H10. For the mini-van used at 07.00 to be used again at 08.00, it would mean that it would ONLY take 5 minutes from PdL to Lagos, and the guests had to be punctual to the minute.

Seemingly not.

So, what this would really mean is that the OC would have to have provided, apparently, at least 5 different mini-vans and 5 different drivers to comply with what is determined in the S&S sheet. One significant expense of resources.

That's right! So, what could it possibly mean, oh wise one?

The S&S tours would have to be one MAIN attraction, if not the biggest one, that was provided by the OC resort.

Really? That's where you decided to go with this?

And requested almost as much as the famous Tapas Bar dinners. After all 29 people apparently reserved for that day alone.

Ah ha! Is the penny dropping yet?

Wonder if it had a limited number of reservations also...

That's it - you are on the right tracks! Think, think you daft bitch.

However, we haven’t seen it significantly announced anywhere, nor have we read about it in any of the reviews. Nor in any of of the statements in the PJ Files. Is this yet another secretive activity that could not be released to the public? It seems unlikely to say the least.

That's because it IS fucking unlikely, you spangle-headed loon.

Another thing that doesn’t fit right here is that if the MACKENSONs and the VINCENTs left at 08.00, they would then arrive at the S&S park at 08.35, which would mean that would have to wait, at least, 01H25for the facility to open its doors.

So what could that mean? Oh please try, you dozy cow.

Good thing they had the SAVAGEs to talk with, as this family had to rise up real early to get to wait 02H25 at the entrance!

*Bangs head on wall*

If this family would be in a no-talking mood, as one would expect, then they could also talk with the other 6 families that had arrived before them. If they were in the mood also, that is.

No, definitely, the S&S sheet IS NOT a reservation sheet nor a transportation roster to the Slide & Splash park.

About bloody time! Now think about this - if I have some writing paper with chickens on and I use it to make a list as follows:Post lettersHair appointmentPick up dry cleaningPint of Milk..... would anyone reading it assume that I was running errands for the fucking chickens? Then why did you?

Another indication to that effect is that it lacks both a date to which it refers to, as well as there’s no return times for those transported.

Can we please just let go of the idea that it is anything to do with the bastard water park? FFS!

So, for a long time, the only relevant thing we thought that the S&S sheet showed of interest was thehandwriting.

It’s the same as the one that wrote the first two Tapas “reservation” sheets.

Stalker alert!

The third, as we know, the one for May 3rd, was written by someone trying to imitate this particular handwriting, but did do a poor job.

Why? For the love of god, why?

The fact that the handwriting is the same is an important detail but not a clarifying one, in terms of objectivity to determine the purpose of the paper.

That sentence is totally meaningless but it probably sounded good in your empty head

It does allow questioning the fact that the Tapas Bar was used to book a lot of activities, such as dinners, tennis and Slide & Splash tours, when we’ve read in the reviews that ALL the bookings were done at The Mill.

There were no Slide and Splash tours Try to keep up

But that doesn’t clarify why the S&S sheet even exists.

I am going to insert a little note here.You are all sensible people. I am sure that, by now many of you will have realised exactly what this bit of paper is and trust me when I say it is of absolutely no significance whatsoever, but let's watch her flounder for a bit longer

But if the S&S sheet baffled the three of us, it really, really bugged Sina J.

You do surprise me

Whenever possible, within context or completely out of it, she would bring it into the discussion.

Those long winter evenings must just fly by

But these discussions led nowhere. We weren't able to come to any adequate conclusion. The intent of this paper remained a mystery, as it just didn’t make any sense at all.

Christ, you are all dimmer than a one watt light bulb

But what is there to be seen remains there to be seen. Evidence has one HUGE quality, and that it is patient. It will wait whatever time is required for the adequate eyes to see it.

Recently, Sina J said the following: “I have been thinking yet again about this S&S timetable as it makes no sense as a theme park booking. Could it be a…? Or a…? There is obviously a reason for….. On the other hand could it be a…? It's bugging me that I can't work out what it could be. These names don't crop up elsewhere and there are no statements from them. I don't even know why this was included in the PJ files.”

Well, the Director of Public Prosecutions can sleep easy at night, knowing such a rapier-sharp brain is on the case

This led to yet another brainstorming session between the three of us. But this time with positive results.

Brainstorming?You don't have the collective brains for a light shower.

Thanks again to Sina J, we finally understood what the S&S sheet was all about.

Hoo fucking ray.

All because she simply paired up the May 7th Tapas “reservation” sheet with the S&S sheet. Here is the that particular Tapas sheet:

Ah, the penny drops at last

Yes, readers, this is the tapas dinner bookings for 7th May. Mystery solved

This is what it says:If you look attentively at the scribbled line, you don’t have to be great of a detective to see that what was scribbled out was this:This then means that the original list, for that day, was made up as such:
Let’s now compare what the S&S sheet (blue) with the Tapas one (red), line by line (I’ll just change on the S&S sheet the order in which the room number with the # people appear, in each of the lines):
So if you transform the apparent a.m. time of the S&S sheet with the p.m. time of the Tapas sheet, you have a PERFECT match, with the exception of the MACKENSON and VINCENT families.

Isn’t that just a fascinating coincidence?

It's not a coincidence, you steaming great shitgibbon - it's a copy

Another coincidence is that BOTH these documents join up, in time, these families in the exact same groups: HYND with HARRISON and MULLARD; BUDEKIN with STINTON-HEELEY; and MACKENSON withVINCENT.

It's a fucking copy

The third coincidence is that BOTH these documents keep SAVAGE and NEWAN alone.

It's a fucking copy.

What does Kate McCann have to say about three coincidences?

They are not coincidences. It's a fucking copy.

That they’re no longer coincidences. Her words, not mine.

So, unless these 29 people were into a VERY UNUSUAL ROUTINE of doing things in the exact same groups, separated by the exact same intervals of times, which is not only unlikely, as is ridiculous, these TWO different documents, mentioning completely distinct activities ARE INTERLINKED.

It's a copy

They have the exact same information on them.

It is a bastard copy, you fucking loon.

This PROVES that both the named GUESTS and the OC STAFF that wrote down the information and handed both these papers over to the PJ knew they were providing FALSE information.

Whoa! Just a minute, loonypants. How have you got from two pieces of paper with the same info to guests and staff in a conspiracy?

They are part of a cover-up.

Oh fuck off, doNow, pay attention to the next bit, readers, because this is where the true cunning of these evil guests and staff will be exposed. Are you ready? Brace yourself, this is going to be rough

First, it’s a minor discrepancy, as both families’ times are changed maintaining the structure of the group, and second, there’s no discrepancy at all, as the change has a reason.

Does it? Tell us, your highness?

Here you have to remember that the handwriting of the S&S sheet is the SAME as the one that wrote up the first two Tapas “reservation” sheets.

This means that the S&S sheet is nothing but a draft of a list of GUESTS to be used when in the mocking up of an nonexistent "Tapas reservation book", but wasn’t used, at least, at first.

Ah!So that's it. The Splash and slide stuff is a list of guests who have agreed to help in the cover up!Oh it's so simple, now I have seen the light!

It’s information that has been written down on a Slide & Splashstationary notepad, and has got nothing to do with that theme park in any form or manner. It was written there as it could have been written on another pad with a completely different logo. Or no logo at all.

The information on it is about Tapas “reservations”, and not about anything else.

Indeed it is!At this point it seems like a good time to stop and explain what all this is about.It is very simple. The Slide and Splash sheet appears to be from a notepad, probably a promotional item. The information on it is simply a copy of the Tapas reservation sheet for the 7th May. Why did it exist? Well, who knows? Perhaps they briefly ran out of reservation sheets and made do temporarily with a notepad. Maybe someone mislaid the file. Maybe the police had it. It really isn't important.What is important is this:The 7th May was some days after Madeleine disappeared, and after the McCanns et al were due to have gone home. So what the fuck is Textusa on about in the next bit, where she claims the Tapas group were supposed to be included in the 8.30 slot? Where she claims it was proof that the guests and staff were engaged in a cover up?Because another thing she forgets to tell you is that most of the people listed on that sheet didn't even arrive in Portugal until after Madeleine disappeared.Now read on......

What most likely happened is that somebody, by request or own initiative, tried to hand over to the PJonly the first three sheets, May 1st, May 2nd and May 3rd. These were the only ones they had made up until then.

Made up? But we know that the diners ate at the tapas on those dates because there are statements from some of them. Ooops - of course, I forgot, they all lied to cover up the swinging. Especially those two sisters, one heavily pregnant - they must have been a real star turn.

However, when the reservation sheets were handed over, most likely the PJ requested ALL existing reservation sheets for the month of May, and not only those leading up to the May 3rd evening.

Most likely?So in other words, you haven't a clue?It's ''most likely'' they just said "Can we have the tapas bookings?" and they handed over the file, oblivious to the fact that a random scrap of notepaper would result in a lunatic blogger wetting her knickers with excitement

A natural and adequate request, in my opinion.

So whoever was handing over the papers, was surprised by this request and had to go back quickly and come up with the “missing” ones.

To say that they didn't have them would give away the whole thing, wouldn't it?

What ''whole thing'' would that be?

This justifies the difference in the templates and handwritings that we can see between the first three and the last three.

This person had at least one drafted list with him (the handwriting seems to be male) and used it, the S&S sheet.

It's just a copy, you mental

But there’s one MAIN difference between the times that both these documents were written up: the alleged T9 reservation.

When the S&S sheet was written up, the 20:30 timeslot was booked by the T9, so MACKENSON & VINCENT had to be put at 08.00. But on Monday 7th, there was to be NO T9 booking, so this guy thought it very clever to put these two families at that time, just to reinforce that fact.

Just to reinforce what fact? What the everlasting bollocks is that supposed to mean?

Stupid move, as we can now clearly see the intent.

I'm glad you can, because the sane amongst us can't

If anything, it PROVES that the S&S sheet was written up BEFORE the Tapas sheet.

How? Why? How?

As stupid it was to forget to take out the S&S sheet before handing over the whole lot of the papers.

It must have been the hurry and the pressure that made him do a mistake like that. I can only imagine how hard it was to go back and make up three further “reservation” sheets, and hand them over appearing to have just gone back to pick up three existing ones.

Yes, but you have an imagination that can be best described as ''pathological''

And I can imagie what this person has been suffering knowing that the document appeared in the PJ Files, and what it really revealed...

So what DID it reveal, fuckface?That some people who weren't in Portugal when Madeleine disappeared went for dinner on the 7th?That's basically it, isn't it?You jumped straight from "Oh look, these are the same" to "This is all false information and evidence of foul play"

So the handing over of the S&S sheet was an understandable mistake.

However, a fatal one.

WHY?!!!!!!!!!

As a final note, I’ll leave a comment by Sina J, about the S&S sheet that so much bothered her, but no longer does: “The other thing about that S&S sheet is when you check the dates of these people arriving and leaving they don't match up. Some leave May 5th and others arrive on that date.”

None of them leave! But that is when most of them arrive - and even knowing that, you still don't get it?

I hope you do understand the importance of this post.

No, we haven't a fucking clue

Now, if you don't mind, I must go back to my nursing duties, so please, do continue to behave while I’m not around.

Oh fuck off, Florence Shiteingale(For those of you who fancy reading the original comments, you can find them here http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/tapas-quiz-night-question-4.html.Some of them might sound a tad familiar )